[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gphoto-devel
Subject:    [gphoto-devel] Re: gPhoto2 licensing clarification (was Re: Introduction and Comments)
From:       Scott <scottf () gphoto ! net>
Date:       2000-08-22 3:35:17
[Download RAW message or body]

Richard Stallman wrote:

> This opens the danger of non-free camera drivers, which could be a
> perennial problem, like the problem of non-free device drivers in
> Linux.  By allowing them we would impose on ourselves a never-ending
> effort to obtain free drivers for all cameras, in effect the effort of
> persuading each company to allow a free driver.

This is solved by the fact that the companies have the option of
"sponsoring" a developer to do the development and maintainence at
no-cost to the company. The motivation is that they off-load their
driver development/costs on to a developer in the community. That's
their gain. Our gain is that we get the driver, GPL'd(!), and people can
use their cameras. On first glance, this looks as if the company is
taking advantage of a developer, but as others have mentioned in the
past, people have joined gPhoto for the experience and because it is a
tremendously fun project. There are developers who would not hesitate to
take on such a project.

Since this topic has come up, I will say that I've been approached on
different occasions recently by different companies to do such a thing
(write a driver for the company). They understood the resulting driver
would be GPL'd. They are still considering it after knowing that.

> If Linus had not given permission for non-free device drivers, we (our
> community) would have had an easy way to insist on free drivers for
> all PC devices: by simply telling the hardware companies that this is
> the only way they can legally make the GNU/Linux system support their
> hardware.  A few might say they don't care if their hardware is
> supported, but most would simply cooperate.

This really depends on the industry though. In imaging processing,
algorithms and protocols are safe-guarded (I'm sure you are aware of
that). They are a source of revenue for the companies and as a result,
will not be made publicly available. 

Case in point: the mattel camera library downloads pictures off of the
Barbie, WWF, and Hot Wheels cameras. Keep in mind these are $60 toy
cameras. They use hardware and firmware developed by Vision Ltd. Two
open-source developers have been able to produce grayscale images from
the downloaded data, but the colorization algorithm is still missing.
When we contacted Vision to request it, they said it was a trade secret
and will never be released. So, Vision-derived camera users will need to
stick with grayscale images. They protected their algorithm even on a
little toy camera!

Again and again, we have been met with policy and trade-secret
rejections from camera companies. With the talent of the developers on
this list, we have been able to bring gPhoto forward without their help.
So far, so good... but for how long.

We need to provide a chance for the camera manufacturers to see that
gPhoto support is a good thing, even if it means they want to provide
non-GPL'd drivers. Those drivers won't last long though. gPhoto2 will be
constantly evolving and the maintainence on those drivers will far
out-weigh the benefits of saying "works with GNU/Linux!". It is in the
company's best interest to sponsor a developer or team to maintain the
driver.

> But the real goal of supporting the hardware *with free
> software* becomes harder to reach, because they do not see a need to
> cooperate with us.

They don't need to, but it is in their best interest to do so.

> It let the barbarians
> enter through the mountain pass which a handful of men could have held
> against a horde, and now we must defend each city, year after year.

I'm sorry, but I can't let this analogy go by without comment. I am a
recent (1.5 years) college graduate and made several very good friends
who have gone on to work for companies who produce commercial software
both as developers and as management. They are not barbarians, nor are
they out for money and the likes like this analogy would imply. They are
good, quality human beings and comparing them to barbarians just does
not sit well with me. Perhaps a better analogy is needed.

> What happens on OS/2 is a secondary issue for a GNU program. 

I write software for my parents.

Quite a random statement, eh? well, let me explain. 

For 4 years, i worked computer support for the local university. I had
to deal with everything from hardware/software issues to personality
issues as well. I've seen a LOT in the ways that people do things,
whether right or wrong. Of all the calls I handled, 75% of them were
usability issues; something wasn't intuitive/obvious and they broke
other things trying to "fix it". These are the people i write software
for; these are essentially my parents.  They are people who need a
better and more stable way to do things. I don't know who else on this
list has ever worked in support, but if you did, you'd know what I'm
talking about.

People use computers as tools in every day life. If I find out I've made
someone's life easier, that would make me ecstatic (personally). I've
dealt with frustration day-in and day-out and had ear-fulls of
suggestions and comments from people who just want their computer to
work. 

Well, my motivation, in the end, is to make their computer work. I want
to make people's lives easier, even in the smallest ways. If I can help
to create something that lets them download photos from their digital
cameras from ANY platform, no matter how insignificant that may seem to
some, then I'm able to go to bed happy that night. I know that I let
those people avoid the frustration that comes from not being able to do
what they want.

If i'm able to push free software and prove that it "works" (in a
philosophical sense) at the same time, then i'm that much happier. I
develop for free systems because I have experienced the power and
community-feeling that comes with it. If everyday people use gPhoto,
then the development model (free and open) can't help but be recognized
and respected even more.

> But what he wants to do is probably actually permitted by the GPL.  If
> these libraries are distributed with the OS/2 kernel or with the OS/2
> compiler, then the GPL actually permits linking with them (because of
> the "system library" exception, although "system library" are not the
> actual words used in the GPL).

Nope. this is the actual GUI toolkit used standard on OS/2. Not
considered a system library.

> The mixture of free and non-free
> software is exactly what we are trying to *prevent*.

Then why the "system library" clause? removing that would guarantee a
completely free system, so i am curious, why does it remain? 

Also, why the need for the LGPL then?

This seems somewhat contradictory to me. To advocate not mixing free and
non-free software, but at the same time providing licenses that don't
hold true to the said statement.

>     The other reason is that as we expand to other platforms with gPhoto2,
>     we will run into proprietary competition as I previously had mentioned.
> This could be a relevant factor in the strategic decision.  It depends
> what sort of competition; competition for what?  So could you please
> go into more detail about this?

Here is a brief listing of competition for image transfer standards:

DCITU on OS/2: http://charette.dyn.tj/dcitu
IXLA DCA on Windows: http://www.ixla.com/products/dcd.htm
TWAIN on Windows: http://www.twain.org
Photoshop Image acquisition plug-in on MacIntosh: (no URL available)
Various camera utils on BeOS: http://www.bebits.com/browse/169 (uses
BDCP)

> Would you please call it GNU/Linux in this discussion? 

Yes.

> Whether to release it under the LPGL as a GNU package is the question
> we are talking about.  It isn't decided yet.

The gPhoto2 core has been LGPL'd since February of this year. It has
been in CVS and under developmental release for as long a time.

From what i've seen and experienced so far in my life, I feel it would
be in everyone's best interest (the developers, the community, my
parents, and computer users in general) if gPhoto expanded it's
offerings to other platforms and became an open and free standard. If
this is contradictory to what the GNU project would like us to do, then
perhaps we should no longer be a GNU sponsored/sanctioned project. 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-------------------- - - -   -    -
Scott Fritzinger		email: scottf@gphoto.net
gPhoto Project			  icq: 15884777
www.gphoto.net

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]